Art of the Steal [Import] has been added to your Cart
+ CDN$ 3.49 shipping
Used: Like New | Details
Condition: Used: Like New
Comment: Played one time. Ships with DELIVERY CONFIRMATION. Inventory #DVD399
Have one to sell? Sell on Amazon

Art of the Steal [Import]

3.5 out of 5 stars 2 customer reviews

Price: CDN$ 32.25 & FREE Shipping. Details
Only 2 left in stock (more on the way).
Ships from and sold by Amazon.ca. Gift-wrap available.
12 new from CDN$ 24.01 9 used from CDN$ 16.44

Product Details

  • Actors: Julian Bond, David D'Arcy, Richard Feigen, Richard H. Glanton, Christopher Knight
  • Directors: Don Argott
  • Producers: Gary E. Irwin, Lenny Feinberg, Sheena M. Joyce
  • Format: NTSC, Import
  • Language: English
  • Number of discs: 1
  • Studio: Ifc Independent Film
  • Release Date: July 27 2010
  • Run Time: 101 minutes
  • Average Customer Review: 3.5 out of 5 stars 2 customer reviews
  • ASIN: B003JHXS1E
  •  Would you like to update product info, give feedback on images, or tell us about a lower price?

Product Description


Director Don Argott's documentary about the controversial move of the Barnes art collection to downtown Philadelphia, The Art of the Steal, is so adamantly against the relocation that it feels as if the viewer is watching evidence presented in a murder trial. Ex-Barnes student Lenny Feinberg funded the film, openly intending it to be an argument against the relocation, in recent years, of the Barnes Foundation, which was established in 1922. Albert Barnes envisioned his foundation as an art school rather than a museum, and he wrote a detailed will to dictate the future of his highly desirable collection (valued at $25 billion) of impressionist and postimpressionist works by artists like Picasso, Renoir, Matisse, van Gogh, Cezanne, and others. The film focuses on interviews given by people on both sides: advocates and art advisers, critics such as Christopher Knight, professors such as Dr. Robert Zaller, and those under fire, like Richard Glanson, ex-Barnes president who planned dubious legislation in the 1990s to move the art from its rural location. Copious research into what some call a crime shows, and one almost gets too clear a picture of, how a private art collection can be usurped through government. Yet the film's didacticism is also its weakness. Typewriters in the credits amid slips of torn paper with typewritten notes, black backdrops with title headings for each chapter that melodramatically read "The Last Living Apostle" or "The Takeover," offer little in the way of interpretative opinion. Midway through this well-played, strategic film there appears a bulletin board of "key players," those politicians and socialites who enabled Albert Barnes's art collection to move against Barnes's will. Even Philadelphia mayor John F. Scott, who holds a press conference to announce that the collection will be relocated to the city, comes out looking fiendish because some art was moved to a new location. While art-world viewers may find the story in The Art of the Steal as offensive as Argott obviously does, some viewers may be left wondering Who cares? --Trinie Dalton

Customer Reviews

3.5 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See both customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: DVD
The documentary itself is endlessly fascinating and entertaining. The problem is this is a DVD and it contains zero extras. When you consider it's about one of the greatest art collections in the world, why not a walk-through each of the rooms of the Barnes? Why not have a sit-down with former students and a discussion on what the Barnes has meant to them inside and outside the world of art?

The documentary also has plenty of flaws. The makers were unable to get interviews with many of the people who are behind the organized hijacking of the Barnes collection from a suburb of Philadelphia to the city proper. In many ways, being more a casual lover of art vs. one with a passionate knowledge, I could not get why there could not be a compromise to keep the Barnes as a teaching institute in its same location yet at the same time open it up even a smidge to the general public maybe along the lines of the Getty in suburban LA (numbers are somewhat limited per day and it's also located away from a residential area).

Also, not enough is made of why Barnes lifetime fight with the denizens of Philly's elite really helped fuel their fire to steal the collection. If you believe in any version of hell, you know the entire Philly elite are headed there for this egregious theft (and it is a theft albeit one done using political and legal loopholes).

Lastly, what really threw me for a loop was Civil Rights veteran Julian Bond showing up in the film (he has a connection to Barnes you'll discover) as a definitive voice of reason who pulls no punches at all. The Barnes would have been better off somehow leaving it in his hands after Dr. Barnes' death.
2 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse
Format: DVD
Interesting and entertaining look at how a bunch of the powerful in Philadelphia basically conspired to take one of the great modern art collections in the world away from it's home in the suburbs, , and transplant them into Philadelphia proper, against the express wishes left in Albert C. Barnes will (made in 1922).

While there's no question the tactics used by those in power are sleazy, the film also ignores what I consider a key issue: Is it really such a bad thing that one of the most amazing collections of modern art be much more accessible to the public, even if it violates the will of a man with no heirs who has been dead over 50 years? At what point do old grudges - going both ways - count less than art belonging to the world? I'm not saying there are neat answers to such questions, but the film acts like there's no moral murkiness at all.

Similarly the film uses questionable tactics to argue its case. For example it's constantly stating how those on the 'other side' refuse to be interviewed. Yet, it is clear that the ideology of the film-makers is known to all involved -- the film is financed by one of the leaders of the group fighting against the collections movement, and guards at a gathering of those planning the art move know not to allow in this specific film crew, even mentioning their production company name. If you knew you a film was being made whose basic premise is that you're a swindler a cheat and a thief with no respect for art, would you agree to be interviewed?

Additionally, some of those who seem so calm and well reasoned while being interviewed and arguing the art should be left where it is, seem a little less impressive when you see them outside that same gathering screaming 'philistines!' at those going inside.
Read more ›
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again.
Report abuse

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: HASH(0xa1d16498) out of 5 stars 120 reviews
83 of 91 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa194bc9c) out of 5 stars Very interesting on many levels...or, It's Always Greedy In Philadelphia Politics! Aug. 11 2010
By K. Swanson - Published on Amazon.com
Format: DVD
4.5 stars

This movie's weakness---its favoritism towards one side of the case---is also its strength, as that side is so obviously in the legal and moral right here. Barnes wanted his insanely fine modern art collection left as it was, to be used mainly as a school. He took much care in setting it up as a uniquely low key semi-museum that showed these works in the venue and manner that he chose, and he wanted it that way in perpetuity. Part of that desire was clearly to snub the idiots who ran the Philly Museum of Art, who derided his collection when they hadn't yet been informed---by people who actually knew something about art---that they should like this art.

Art Of The Steal is the tale of their heirs' obviously conspiratorial revenge against Barnes, for having been so right about both his collection and their apparently infinite greed, stupidity, and phoniness. Modern sleazeball heirs of older sleazeball fortunes, like the gangster-money Annenbergs and the hilariously/painfully Machiavellian Becky Rimel, merge here with newly minted sleazy politicians like Bernie Watson, "Judge" Ott, Ricky Glanton, and other patently paid off workers of the political system of Philly, which looks to be about as honest as Chicago's. They all see The Main Chance for their careers and bank accounts, and the best part is how they posit themselves as saviors of the public good while robbing the Barnes Foundation and Lincoln University blind. (And surprise! The 1998 audit that claimed the BF was broke, conveniently ignoring their endless ways to generate cash, was by Deloitte Touche, the slippery Brit accountants heavily linked to so many bailout scams and also to Sotheby's, the art world's greatest crooks.)

An examination of the wiki about the BF is telling; they've sanitized that sucker down to the ground, just as they no doubt paid off Ott and Watson and Steele with promises of endless campaign contributions and entree into the elite circles of botox-frozen phonies that dot the Philly low society we see on display here. Their machinations have taken decades to play out; they've been planning this for generations, clearly.

Because, really!? How DARE Barnes know SO much more about art than them, and be so clearly in the right then and now? How DARE he leave his priceless collection to a small, liberal black college? (Well, priceless until the Pews need to apply for charitable status and suddenly are conservators of the Barnes which they estimate at "above 25 to 30 billion dollars" in worth). How DARE he take away from the old Philly money (grubbers) what is rightfully theirs...except by any fair legal or moral reckoning?

But even the slant of this doc can't overstate the sheer greed and sneakiness and duplicity of these weasels. It boggles the mind, but it's just business as usual: politicians bought off by big money and everybody claiming it's for the public good. The way Glanton used the apparently moronic reporter Fleeson to his ends is quite something as well (though of course she was working for the Annenbergs' newspaper, and you just know Perelman had his grubby little paws in there too; he's a real pearl, no doubt). Everybody wants to be a "star" for a day or a week or whatever....but never thinks about how they'll appear to posterity. This film takes good care of that.

However, it's clear that the BF was played by some real masters. Glanton suddenly had tourist buses going into the Barnes neighborhood all week long in the '90s; he clearly wanted to make the 'hood mad at the traffic and thus give yet more reason for the place to be moved. They sadly played right into his hands; as said, this was a looong plan played out over decades. The gangster money of the Annenberg family has been waiting for 70 years to get revenge on Barnes' superior taste and intelligence, but in the end their transparent greed only confirms his superiority in every way. That they are pilfering Barnes' collection for their foundations, along with the Peeyew Your Money Smells folks and the Scamfasts, all in the name of "charity", is too perfect (I'd like to see a movie about where all their "charitable" money goes, speaking of corruption and buying favors; no doubt Ott, Watson, Steele and Glanton have enjoyed many perks from these coffers).

But the greatest irony is that this little work of art, this simple but so well done documentary, is quite likely to be how most of these people are remembered by the world at large as time goes by. And man, do they look sleazy. I had to crack up when they did a slow close-up of that Becky Rimel photo where she looks so hideous, like some sort of ugly sister of Medusa with a flabby neck and no chin and those beady, sneaky little eyes...you can just hear her whining to her friends over chardonnay at the club, "They used the worst picture they could find!" One can be sure there was no shortage; you can't scheme on this level without it showing up on your face, no matter how often the plastic surgeons stretch it over your head and down your spine towards the flickering, darting tail of Beelezebub.

But seriously, folks, this film really is well worth watching, not just for the entertainment but for the education of how great crimes are made to happen nowadays. The old saying, behind every great fortune is a great crime, is turned on its ear here, and this great crime has stolen a truly massive great fortune from a few schools, Barnes' and Lincoln, and used it to to enrich their own fortunes yet further. THIS is how the game is played: with a cast of plenty, anyone who wants more money and career being welcome if they can slither on in to the throne room, all the way to Ott, who must have quite a fun time looking himself in the mirror these days. "No standing"! Hoho! Perfectly good standing is exactly what this film, the case against this crime, and Barnes' will and original intent do have.

Yes, more people can see the paintings now, and that's the sole positive here, but by that logic every person on the globe should have full access to every painting ever painted, for free...and you know that ain't what these folks have in mind. Where's the money in it for them? The real issue is whether we have the right to have our lives' works preserved as we want them when we're gone, and whether our wills and trusts and wishes will be honored...and this film makes it clear that we really don't, and they probably won't. It's sad, as the Barnes is such a truly unique place, one of a kind, and now it'll just be another collection in the monolithic world of modern art. The exact opposite of what Barnes wanted...but what did he know? He only put the collection together and was friends with most of the artists. What rights does he have once he's gone? None, clearly.

And the true sign of crime here---the $100 million secretly tucked into the budget for moving the Barnes collection before it had even gone to court---well, there's no arguing that...especially since Ott was so obviously bought off. Make that man a Senator!

TAOTS clearly shows how the Barnes Foundation was concertedly made to falter by many people over the past few decades, all for personal gain of power and "prestige" and money, by a bunch of amazingly phony, soulless people. That they are on display in all their greed for posterity in this film is a work of art in itself, and one can feel the hand of old Barnes reaching out from beyond the grave to make the final point here: you can trust a few people, but sooner or later they die off and sooner than later sleazy, greedy folks will show up and grab all that they can plunder.

It sure is nice to see them get theirs here, though.
Sweet dreams, you weasels. THIS is your place in history.
35 of 36 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa1938294) out of 5 stars The Real Crime of the Century July 30 2010
By Glenn Koch - Published on Amazon.com
Format: DVD
Can something be both fantastic and utterly disgusting at the same time? If so, then this movie is it. I knew about this situation somewhat peripherally, but having it all laid out in front of me as it is in this film, just ties all the pieces together to what I think must be the art heist of the century. All you need to do is follow the money in this film to see who the real theives are. By the time it's over it is abundantly clear just what happened to the Barne's Foundation and its fabulous collection. You will be especially appalled by the corporate greed that surrounds the telling of this story and the corporate whore who is at the center of it.

Is it a crime to be eccentric? That is basically what the entire string of thinking that promulgated by the high profile crowd in this film seems to say about Dr. Barnes. And frankly, that's the biggest lie I've ever heard. Does being eccentric invalidate a man's will? It certainly shouldn't, but that is what has been allowed to happen. The people of Philadelphia turned there backs on Dr. Albert Barnes once in his life when they were too small minded to share his forsight, but then when he was gone, they wanted to reap the spoils of his genius.

But at the same time, I think the neighbors of the Barnes Foundation should shoulder a great amount of the blame for what happened here too. Had they kept their big mouths shut in the first place, much of this whole thing could have been avoided. What really cracks me up is that the Barnes Foundation has most likely been there longer than any of its neighbors. They moved there knowing it was there... but alas.

Anyway, watch this film, think about what it says, and be just as enraged as I was by it. It is a travesty of grand proportions.
53 of 58 people found the following review helpful
By Xmas Gift-Dad Don't Open - Published on Amazon.com
Format: DVD Verified Purchase
I watched this documentary at home one day with nothing else to do. I had gone to the Barnes Foundation and thought the art was beyond believable. This documentary was so unbelievable, the people who stole this art, the politicians who let this happen - what is the story with Philadelphia? Your governor, your mayor let this happen - they were proud that they should steal this art, they think it is for the benefit of the masses.
Why would the will of an individual not be honored by law? Everything Dr. Barnes wanted is now being disregarded. It is a crime, I mean it is really a serious crime concerning billions of dollars of art that is being disregarded. What are your thoughts?
27 of 30 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa193edb0) out of 5 stars The "Who Cares" in the Amazon review is just plain wrong. Oct. 4 2010
By Oscar - Published on Amazon.com
Format: DVD
Let me answer the "who cares" part of the Amazon.com official review. The answer? Everyone "should" care. Why? Because this film shows that YOUR will does not matter if those with money and power want something. Dr. Barnes had left a significant amount of money behind to take care of (in Walter Annenberg's words) his "family" and he had left what he thought was an iron-clad will. He did not forsee the political ambitions of Mayor John F. Street (check your facts, Amazon) and Governor Rendell, nor the "philanthropic" ambitions of the Pew Charitable Trusts (a "public" entity $5.8 billion in assets and $360million in revenue ... why do they have access to public funds and special tax breaks at this financial level??)

So why should you care? Because it means -simply- that what you want to have done with your possessions after you pass does not amount to a hill of beans if outside political and financial interests stand in your way.

Another reason to see the film? It plays like a great thriller!
15 of 17 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0xa21a4e40) out of 5 stars This film tells a one-sided, but important story. Nov. 19 2010
By Lorna - Published on Amazon.com
Format: DVD Verified Purchase
Today, I am an art historian who became one, in large part, because of the magnificent collection at the Barnes Foundation. I grew up a mile from the Barnes and went regularly with my family, paying only $1 or $2 per visit. We were by no means wealthy-- I lived on the "other side of the tracks"--truly West Philadelphia born and raised. I volunteered at the Barnes, briefly, in the early 1990s while in college, shortly after Mr. Glanton had begun to undo the intentions of Dr. Barnes. At the time, I sympathized with the impulse to make this amazing collection available to more people, but I was too young to understand the cost. Last week, I visited the Barnes for a nostalgic last look at the paintings that had become childhood friends. Now a college professor, I brought a large group of my financially-struggling students who each paid an admission price of $17 (The Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in NY, which never had a mission to bring art to the poor, working classes as Barnes did, charges $20), plus $15/vehicle for parking. Upon entry, we encountered the store (a Glanton feature never countenanced by Barnes), in which is sold prints of various paintings from the collection (that were never, according to Barnes, supposed to be reproduced), which had traveled across the world for a tour at major museums in Paris, Tokyo, etc. under Glanton's supervision (a direct violation of Dr. Barnes' will). Members of my family snidely comment whenever we see this store, "Barnes is surely rolling over in his grave." As a Philadelphia native, I am thrilled to see the city's tourism market thrive. As an art historian, I am delighted to share this unparalleled collection with more people... But as a staunch believer in equality and fairness, I find the permanent relocation of the entire collection against the expressed (and legally binding) wishes of the founder troubling. If we are a society of laws, to whom and when do they apply? Those in favor of the move laud the purported outcome that the work will be more accessible. But at $17 per person, to whom does access apply?

Look for similar items by category